Church-state separation --- It works!

There seems to be a rather fashionable idea floating around at the moment that we are not a nation founded "under God," and that the Pledge of Allegiance is therefore unconstitutional because it has those two words in it.  Throughout the Revolutionary War, under the Articles of Confederation, during the Constitutional Convention, and as the First Congress met--the same Congress that passed the First Amendment--our government collectively and as individuals used language that shows what the Framers of our government considered appropriate as part of official duties and documents. Some of this language, one might argue, is an expression of a lowest common denominator form of Christianity, and was so broadly encompassing as to mean almost nothing.  Very true--much like the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance today. Is having those words in the Pledge of Allegiance today still a good idea?  Should teachers be required to lead their students in the Pledge of Allegiance, as Calfornia law requires?  Those are both legitimate questions of policy.  The claim that these two words in the Pledge are unconstitutional requires us to assume that the Framers of our Constitution intended the First Amendment to make some sweeping change from everything that they had stood for, during the Revolution, under the Articles of Confederation government, during the Constitutional Convention, and in the First Congress. Delaware's Constitutional Convention's on September 6, 1776, modified a statement required of all members of the House: The Convention met. On Motion of Mr. McKean, Resolved unanimously, That the following Words be added to the Profession of Faith made by the Members of this House respectively, to wit, "And I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine Inspiration." [Claudia L. Bushman, Harold B. Hancock, and Elizabeth Moyne Homsey, ed., Proceedings of the Assembly of the Lower Counties on Delaware 1770-1776, of the Constitutional Convention of 1776, and of the House of Assembly of the Delaware State 1776-1781 (Newark, Del.: University of Delaware Press, 1986), 209.]From the dark days of the Revolution, the Continental Congress wrote these words: Mr. W[illiam] Livingston, pursuant to leave granted, brought in a resolution for appointing a fast, which (being taken into consideration) was agreed to as follows: In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity. The Congress, therefore, considering the warlike preparations of the British Ministry to subvert our invaluable rights and priviledges, and to reduce us by fire and sword, by the savages of the wilderness, and our own domestics, to the most abject and ignominious bondage: Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; and by inclining their hearts to justice and benevolence, prevent the further effusion of kindred blood. But if, continuing deaf to the voice of reason and humanity, and inflexibly bent, on desolation and war, they constrain us to repel their hostile invasions by open resistance, that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis--That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Saturday, March 16, 1776, pp. 208-209]A year and a half later, Congress again called for a day of Thanksgiving: Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also to smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defence and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the eighteenth day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favour, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labour of the husbandman, that our land may yet yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth "in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Saturday, November 1, 1777, pp. 854-855]In 1778, the Continental Congress again acknowledged their dependency on God: The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, for setting apart a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, brought in the same; which was read and agreed to as follows: Whereas, Almighty God, in the righteous dispensation of his providence, hath permitted the continuation of a cruel and desolating war in our land; and it being at all times the duty of a people to acknowledge God in all his ways, and more especially to humble themselves before him when evident tokens of his displeasure are manifested; to acknowledge his righteous government; confess, and forsake their evil ways; and implore his mercy: Resolved, That it be recommended to the United States of America to set apart Wednesday, the 22d day of April next, to be observed as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer; that at one time, and with one voice, the inhabitants may acknowledge the righteous dispensations of Divine Providence, and confess their iniquities and transgressions, for which the land mourneth; that they may implore the mercy and forgiveness of God; and beseech him that vice, prophaneness, extortion, and every evil, may be done away; and that we may be a reformed and happy people; that they may unite in humble and earnest supplication, that it may please Almighty God, to guard and defend us against our enemies, and give vigour and success to our military operations by sea and land; that it may please him to bless the civil rulers and people, strengthen and perpetuate our union, and, in his own good time, establish us in the peaceable enjoyment of our rights and liberties; that it may please him to bless our schools and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of true piety, virtue and useful knowledge; that it may please him to cause the earth to yield its increase, and to crown the year with his goodness.And it is recommended to the inhabitants of the United States to abstain, on that day, from labour and recreations.[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Saturday, March 7, 1778, pp. 229-230]From Washington's Farewell Address to the Continental Congress: I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last act of my official life by commending the interests of our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them to his holy keeping.[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Tuesday, December 23, 1783, p. 837]When the Continental Congress set up Admiralty courts: It shall be and is hereby declared to be the duty of the said Judges respectively, to take the following Oath before they proceed to execute the said Commission, vizt.: I, A. B., one of the Judges appointed by Commission under the great Seal of this State bearing Date theDay ofissued in Pursuance of the Ordinance of Congress therein recited, for hearing, determining and judging all Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas by any Person or Persons now within this State or who may come or be brought to it before the Expiration of the said Commission do swear on the holy Evangelists of Almighty God that I will faithfully, diligently and impartially do my Duty as one of the said Judges, according to Justice, Law, and Right, and to the best of my Skill and Understanding. So help me God.[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Monday, October 3, 1785, p. 799]When they established the Northwest Territory: Article the third. Institutions for the promotion of religion and morality, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged, and all persons while young shall be taught some useful Occupation.[Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Wednesday, July 11, 1787, p. 318]Benjamin Franklin, near the end of the Constitutional Convention, addressed the members concerning prayer, God, and the founding of our nation: In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed, in this political building, no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war. and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.[Elliot's Debates 5:253-4]Governor Huntingdon of Connecticut, addressing the ratification convention in that state a few months later: While the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail, they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin. Upon the whole view of this Constitution, I am in favor of it, and think it bids fair to promote our national prosperity.[Elliot's Debates 2:200]The First Congress, the same one that passed the Bill of Rights, had to decide on an oath for members of the House: Resolve, That the form of the oath to be taken by the members of this Houses, as required by the third clause of the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the United States, be as followeth, to wit: "I, A B a Representative of the United "States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in "the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United "States. So help me GOD."[Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793, Monday, April 6, p. 7]Vice President John Adams ended his first address to the Senate this way: A trust of the greatest magnitude is committed to this Legislature; and the eyes of the world are upon you Your country expects, from the results of your deliberations, in concurrence with the other branches of government, consideration abroad, and contentment at home--prosperity, order, justice, peace, and liberty: And may God Almighty's providence assist you to answer their just expectations.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793, Tuesday, April 21, 1789, p. 15]When the Congress responded to President Washington's first address to them, what did they say? We commend you, sir, to the protection of Almighty God, earnestly beseeching him long to preserve a life so valuable and dear to the people of the United States, and that your administration may be prosperous to the nation, and glorious to yourself.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793, Thursday, May 7, 178, p. 23]That Thanksgiving idea came up again later that year: Resolved, That a Joint Committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the People of the United States, a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed, by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of Government for their safety and happiness.[Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793, Friday, September 25, 1789, p. 123]Three days later, Washington wrote a letter to Samuel Langdon observing: The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favored.[The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, George Washington to Samuel Langdon, September 28, 1789]From George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation in 1789: Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.[The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, Series 8a, Correspondence and Miscellaneous Notes, 1773-1799, October 3, 1789]Washington's Farewell Address to Congress: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.State constitutions from this early period included some fairly astonishing language.  The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, section 10, includes this requirement for officeholders: And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.The current Pennsylvania Consitution, Art. I, sec. 4,  still says: No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.From the North Carolina Constitution of 1776: That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.Maryland's 1776 Constitution includes a similar provision at Article 35: That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.You can track the later amendments of this provision here.  Neither of these provisions require these beliefs to hold office, but do allow the legislature to impose such a requirement on officeholders. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 includes some interesting language. Article 18 guarantees that no one will be required to attend or fund any church: XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.No surprise. That last language sounds like it might have been intended to protect enforceability of pledges of tithes by a church member--but you would have to have voluntarily made such a contract. Article 19, while a little clumsily worded, is rather like North Carolina's requirement that officeholders be Protestants: XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.It is interesting to see how this provision clearly prohibits "establishment" but still allows the legislature to impose a requirement that you subscribe to the beliefs "of any Protestant sect."  The definition of "establishment" was clearly a bit different from the ACLU's notion. Even more interesting is that the oath of office specifically addresses these two articles (along with a couple of others): XXIII. That every person, who shall be elected as aforesaid to be a member of the Legislative Council, or House of Assembly, shall, previous to his taking his seat in Council or Assembly, take the following oath or affirmation, viz: " I, A. B., do solemnly declare, that, as a member of the Legislative Council, [or Assembly, as the case may be,] of the Colony of New-Jersey, I will not assent to any law, vote or proceeding, which shall appear to me injurious to the public welfare of said Colony, nor that shall annul or repeal that part of the third section in the Charter of this Colony, which establishes, that the elections of members of the Legislative Council and Assembly shall be annual; nor that part of the twenty-second section in said Charter, respecting the trial by jury, nor that shall annul, repeal, or alter any part or parts of the eighteenth or nineteenth sections of the same."Both the very libertarian--and the very Protestant--sections are specifically protected by the oath of office. The South Carolina Constitution of 1778, Article III: III. That as soon as may be after the first meeting of the senate and house of representatives, and at every first meeting of the senate and house of representatives thereafter, to be elected by virtue of this constitution, they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion, and till such choice shall be made the former president or governor and commander-in-chief, and vice-president or lieutenant-governor, as the case may be, and privy council, shall continue to act as such.Article XII defines the qualifications of state senators:  [N]o person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath attained the age of thirty years, and hath been a resident in this State at least five years.Article XIII defines the requirements to be an elector for the General Assembly, and to be elected to the General Assembly: The qualification of electors shall be that every free white man, and no other person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who has attained to the age of one and twenty years.... No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion, and hath been a resident in this State for three years previous to his election.Article 38 does establish a religion--but not a particular denomination:  XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.Now, we wouldn't impose such requirements today, or think of granting just Protestants rights that other religions do not have.  But to argue that the Framers intended the establishment clause to be read as neutrality between religion and irreligion--the ACLU's position--requires us to assume that the sentiments widely held in the various states all evaporated when the voters sent their representatives to the federal capital. From Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution: Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship. Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.Vermont, while definitely fighting on the American side, was an independent nation until 1791. More libertarian about religion than a number of the American states (there was no establishment of religion), the constitutions of 1777 and 1786 still reveal an attitude about religion that is completely contrary to the "neutrality between religion and irreligion" claim of the ACLU. Chapter 1, Article III of the 1777 Constitution: III. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, regulated by the word of GOD; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment, or peculiar mode of religious worship, and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatsoever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship: nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day, and keep up, and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of GOD.Chapter 1, Article III of the 1786 Constitution is similar, but note the difference at the end: III. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as In their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatsoever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship: Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.It would be a very interesting question as to why the language was made more narrowly Christian in the 1786 Constitution. How did the political figures of the early Republic regard the proper relationship between church and state?  The Library of Congress' exhibition on "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" observes: It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.Congressional actions also demonstrate that they didn't see the First Amendment as a barrier to direct federal support of religion.  Congress reserved section 29 of each township in Ohio for the support of religion.  See American State Papers, House of Representatives, 11th Congress, 3rd Session, Public Lands: Volume 2, p. 220, document 187: It appears to the committee, by the statement of the petitioners, that the third township of the eighth range in the Ohio Company's purchase is a fractional township, being intersected near the centre by the boundary line that separates the track purchased from the donation tract conveyed to the said company; that the said fractional township does not contain the section No. 29, set apart for the support of religion in the several townships in the said purchase, whereby the inhabitants are deprived of the benefit of the ministerial lands.As late as 1833, you find Congressional bills that make reference to this, such as HR 653, 22nd Cong., 2nd sess. To authorize the Legislature of the State of Ohio to sell the land reserved for the support of religion in the Ohio Company....This seems to be the bill that created this, from Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873, December 30, 1801: Mr. Tracy gave notice that he should, to-morrow, ask leave to bring in a bill to carry into effect the appropriations of lands in the purchase of the Ohio company, in the northwestern territory, for the support of schools and religion, and for other purposes.Any notion that the First Amendment demanded neutrality between religion and nonreligion would seem to be contradicted by the actions taken--apparently without criticism or suit. So why did the Senate in 1797 ratify a treaty that proclaimed that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."?  There was no real debate about this treaty, and since it is so at variance with what Congress was actually doing, I am forced to conclude that the Senate took a rather pragmatic approach to the subject, deciding to say whatever would end attacks on American shipping by Barbary pirates.  Reading the entire clause (which, interestingly enough, does not appear in the Arab text of the treaty): As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.The Senate may have believed or rationalized that the important part of this is the statement about "no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility" of Islam. If you want to argue that America is broader religiously today than it was then, no argument.  I doubt any Americans today would seek what Massachusetts had: government paychecks to clergy, with mandatory attendance.  However, this claim that the First Amendment prohibits any expressions of religious belief in public buildings, or in the Pledge of Allegiance, is simply not supportable by the evidence of original intent. Clayton E. Cramer
March 29, 2003 (updated August 30, 2003, September 14, 2003, August 14, 2004, July 12, 2006)

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO

Orange Park | Green Cove Springs

munsey13@comcast.net

The Constitution says nothing about the seperation of church and state. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This came about because England had establlished a religion for the country. Our founding fathers did not want that in this country. They wanted everybody to worship as they pleased.

to munsey 13

Thanks for the great history lesson.

Kinda a long read, but very informative.  If christianity was interwoven a little bit more into our government, this country would be in a better place to live.  Although, this is the greatest country in world already.  Good cristian values never hurt anyone.  In addition, I may not agree with what you say, but Ill die for the right for you to say it.

 God Bless,

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO

Orange Park | Green Cove Springs

munsey13@comcast.net

The separation of church and state you desire is actually impossible. Everybody has a world view and worships something. Our lives bear testimony to what it is we worship. Even the aetheist worships something and has beliefs about God. 

It is impossible to make laws, teach history or other subjects without a world view stemming from a belief or lack of belief in God. Our schools preach secular humanism--or pluralism at best. 

Government funds abortions, stem cell research, sanctions east, no fault divorce, etc, so you can't say government is blind to religion. The lawmakers are endorsing a world view that permits these actions and judges them acceptable - definitely not always a biblical perspective. 

Yes, we live in a nation with increasing religious diversity, but you wrote nothing to convince me that it is a separation of church and state (as you define it) affords us our current relatively peaceful conditions. 

As a Baptist pastor, you should be concerned about the situation in Britain where a candidate is being attacked as unfit for public service because of his belief in God. Organizations like the one you work for will produce this kind of cultural sentiment if you are successful. Organized religion, by some in America, is seen as an enemy of democracy. The On Faith web site has evidence of this animosity: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/. 

As someone who has studied scripture, you should recognize a pattern - nations and people who rejected God's way may have experienced seasons of prosperity but never escaped God's ultimate judgement. We should expect no less. 

Thank you for engaging in this forum. These are very important topics we face today. But then again, "there is nothing new under the sun."    

Back in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville visited America from France to see what this "new nation" looked like.  He traveled widely, did lots of interviews, and wrote a famous book called Democracy in America.  In that book he made this observation: "They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state.  I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point."

This principle goes 'way back in our history, and it works.  It has nothing to do with calling citizens to be "neutral" about their beliefs, or being hostile toward religion. In fact, our Founders knew (like all of us know) that people will always be passionate about their beliefs, especially religious beliefs. The rub is that different people have different views, and each claims to have the final truth. Folks use phrases such as "God's Way"or a "Biblical World View", but let's be honest that Christians cannot agree among themselves about the interpretation of these phrases. And for centuries these claims have exploded into war whenever there is that deadly mix of government power and religious passion.

What can be done?  The American way is to create a nation where claims about truth can be debated out in the marketplace of ideas, while the government remains neutral  and defends everyone's right to join the discussion. You are free to try and persuade me about your views, and I can do the same.  No one gets to lord it over others, or stop the discussion. It's often a bit messy, but this is what church-state separation is all about: freedom of conscience for everyone, while the government stays out of the business of religion. No system is perfect, but ours is the envy of the world. 

Is it OK to use public property for promoting the growth of one particular congregation? What is the policy of the Clay County School Board? This question is raised by the "free football clinic" sponsored by the Hibernia Baptist Church, and held February 24 on the grounds of Fleming Island High School. The Times Union reported that about 2000 kids and parents attended this event, where several football stars were on hand to share their skills with the kids. Evidently, everyone had a good time!

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."
— Thomas Jefferson

I believe the answer would be that, yes, any religious group is allowed to use the public facility. Why should a church be discriminated against because their use and purpose is of a religious nature? I personally have contacted a school and used a facility to host a community association annual meeting. I don't think we paid anything to use it. We simply filled out some paperwork, picked up the key, and returned it when we were finished. I have a feeling the schools' use may be limited to those groups designed NON-Profit (like 501(c)(3)s can use the libraries' conference rooms).
You are right: these building are publicly funded. If the school board allows special interest groups to use or rent the facilities when not in use then they should be open to any group - whether Wiccans or Christians. 
I have a feeling Hibernia Baptist obeyed all the School Board rules that apply to facility use...
The YMCA holds daycare/afterschool activities at schools for a fee at certain schools. If they disallow groups to use the facilities, these non-religious activities should not be allowed to use them either. It is unfair to discriminate against groups because they promote a religion. 
It would be a shame if groups were not allowed to use these facilities during their non-used hours. Many churches use the facilities to hold Sunday services before they have funds to construct a building. Other groups would lose the opportunity that is currently available. 
Are you more concerned that Hibernia Baptist received favor or special privileges that would be denied another group or that their mission may be effective in part to their event location and many lives be changed by the Good News of Jesus Christ? 
What is really your biggest concern?
I'll respond to your previous post later. I dug out my copy of Democracy in America, because DeToqueville has some fascinating observations on the role Christianity specifically played in shaping American mores and supporting our democracy.   

I would respectfully disagree with anyone who would advocate blending Christian, (or any other religious) ideals to the governing of a nation.  I could give examples, but there is always the elements who would not accept what an individual opinion has to offer, and rightfully so.  So I would reccomend that the reader would get an historical treatise on the history of Christianity, starting in about the middle of the fourth century to the present, and read what the making of a theocracy has meant in the utter devastation to Christians and non Christians in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America.

Americans have reviled the actions of groups like the Taliban, and the religious police in nations that are primarily Muslim.  What they don't realise is the fact that Islam learned what they practise now from early Christianity.  Women should pay special attention.  If they think that they have second class status now, here in America, they won't believe what their status will be if we become a truly "Christian," nation. 

Rich, your final sentence is a perfect summation to the question. I agree wholeheartedly. Women would be as bad off under a truly Christian government as the mid-eastern sisters under Islam. The differnce is that Christians don't decapitate women for the crime of enjoying sex. That said, there is NO religion I would want to be governed by. In every one, women are considered second class citizens. Here it is, 2,000 years after the death of Christ, who welcomed women into his philosophy as equals, yet the Catholic Church still denies them equality in jobs.

The Protestant groups all seem to be embracing one nutty outlook after another, and the Jews at least, haven't advertised themselves as anything but what they have always been. They are just as intolerant as any other religion though. If a Jewish man or woman marries outside the faith, they are pretty much considered dead to their families. Not so much today as fifty years ago, but it still goes on.

The best thing we have going for us in this country is Freedom From Religion.

Lily's Lore

In my writings here I have never endorsed making the United States of America a theocracy. No one in America is forced to worship God. No one is killed for worshiping the God of the Christian Bible or worshiping anyone from Allah to Zeus. Priests, ministers, leaders of religious bodies are not simultaneously ordained leaders of the state. 

What we are witnessing in our government is a hostility toward people of failth, especially toward Christians. Am I allowed to volunteer at a school and openly speak words from the Bible or share my Christian witness to a child or fellow parent? Am I allowed to mentor through a state program and share my testimony? Is my free speech protected today, or do I have to muzzle my words if I step into the public forum?   

A lot of violence has been taken place in the name of Jesus Christ, and those unrighteous acts of men do not bring honor to God. As a Christian, I must humbly evaluate my life in light of Scripture and recognize my penchant toward sinning against God. These acts are sober reminders of our human natures. Christians have also done a lot of good on Earth by the grace of God. 

Unfortunately, I missed out on a world history course in high school - my "A" (now IB) high school allowed this honors student to graduate with a geography course taught by a football coach! I am working to rectify my knowledge gap, but I want to stay with original sources so I don't get revisionary history! God willing, I want to educate my children classically with a Christian world view. 

The government schools are scared of offending anyone, so almost every subject is taught as least offensively as possible - eliminating much of what makes history useful, interesting, and didactic. Read The Language Police for insight into textbook selection and standardized testing.  

I am back to square one. It is impossible for laws to not reflect a worldview. It is impossible for schools to remain neutral (maybe the government should stay out of this one). We are creatures designed to worship something. In America, we should rejoice in the fact we are free to worship what we choose. We have a representative democracy. My vote will be extended to men of character who represent my world view. I will vote for men who fear the wrath of God more than people. 

How did "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" become "separation of church and state"?  "How did separation of church and state" evolve to "freedom FROM religion"? What vote authorized these changes to our Constitution?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Geyser-

I think you are confusing two issues. There is nothing in the constitution that states one is free FROM religion. It is merely an observation on my part and as such has as much credence as you wish to attribute it.

Congress shall make no law in the establishment of a religion is all that counts. Separation of Church and State is found in the Federalist papers and is not a legal edict. Many on the lunatic fringe in their pursuit of driving God out of anything in the public domain loudly shout about separation of Church and State as if it is a constitutional fiat. It's not. It's merely a clarion call of an uneducated malignancy masquerading as Public opinion.

Lily's Lore

I will withhold my opinion of some of the opinions offered here. I will however offer my own. I believe the further our nation gets from the Christian beliefs that I belief the framers of our constitution intended the nation to follow. The closer we get to falling from favor with God. I also believe there is a concentrated effort by liberal groups to move us further away. If we do we will fall just as the Roman Empire. JMHO

http://bobbyhill.home.att.net

I think you are right.

As the government in Rome did. Give the people games, wine and bread, and the government can do what they want. People know more about celebrities and soap operas than they know about how the government (both local, state, and federal) are slowly taking away our rights. One day people will wake up and find someone at their front door with a RFD chip to be implanted in their hand.

"Thoes that give up liberty for security have neither"

ww

Dear Lilly's lore,  Thank you for your comments.  You are right that the difference is that Christians DON'T behead women..now.  But their history shows a different story in the past.  Part of the problem, and here I'll center on Christianity, is that they have, from the early part of organising, centered more on imposing their own interpretive views of the gospel in the search for power, rather than practising the tenets of their own core beliefs from Jesus.  Being good to others, respecting others, doing no harm, etc.

Unfortunately, this attitude is with us to this very day.  While they might do some good acts, take a look at the lifestyle of many religious leaders, their limo's, their mansions, country estates and their well funded, well organised attempts to turn this country into a theocracy, especially in the past decade or so.  It would be a difficult task to say whether they are not acting like Christians or they are being typically Christian.  It could go either way and what a shame. 

If they took some of their collective wealth and followed the instructions originally stated in the gospel, we might not need the Supreme Court decision on faith based initiatives.

There is one other person who would love to see Religion separated from people/government all together.  Maybe you heard of him?  His name is Lucifer.  How can anyone say the values and ideas of christianity are a bad thing in any context?  Govermental, Personal or any other?  I think everyone could learn alot from the teachings of Christ and a government with a foundation of Christianity it a great and wonderful thing. Lets not destroy that.  God bless America. In god we MUST trust.

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO

Orange Park | Green Cove Springs

munsey13@comcast.net

In answer to your question, we arrived at the separation of church & state as we arrived at many topics in our constitution, the intent of our framers, historical evidence and the ever changing social needs & wants of our society.

Arrival to the point of Separation began with the wishes of various people, mainly in Europe, to be free from the opprision of religious intolerance and state sponsored religion, especially if was not their particular belief.  Unfortunately, upon arrival, one of their first acts was to set up a theocracy, mainly in Massachussetts.  On the other hand, this move provided ample  material to later generations to finally realise that state sponsored religion is more detrimental to a free society than the right to be able to choose and practise ones beliefs without interference from the state.  Along with that philosophy, they also reconized that it is inherently wrong to require a citizen to sponsor, through taxation, one or more preferred religions under the auspices of the state.

Thus we have the establishment clause which says, basically, that the state cannot infringe upon the right of a person to practise whatever religion he wants, in any manner he wants, within the framework of the law.  It also says that the state cannot show any preference to one particular religion or religions.  The implication being that the state has no business delving in the religious beliefs of the citizen, and should not take the monies gathered from taxation to support religion.

So the process went from historical perspective and evidence to recent evidence to intent via the writings of people like Jefferson and Madison.  Through the many years, up to the present, these philosophies have been modified to fit the needs and wants of our society.  Refinements have been made thanks to the foresight of people like Jefferson and Madison who, in their time, may not have known that now, in the 21st century, we would have over 4,200 recognised religions on the face of this planet.  but because of that particular foresight, they made it possible for any one pracising any one of those religions, could come to our country legally, and be able to practise their religious beliefs without any state interfference or have their hard earned money used to sponsor religions that they did not recognise or practise.  That is the ideal, but unfortunately, like the original concept which stated, "that all men are created equal," there is a discernable gap between the ideal and reality.

By the form of your question, I infer that since the statement, "Separation of church and state," is not in the Declaration or the Constitution, it should not be recognised.  This ploy has been used by the Christian right to promote their own agenda of promoting their particular religious views in an attempt to impose those views, via legislation, on the American public.  I don't know who initiated this philosophy, but they were woefully unprepared and obviously shourt sighted.

It is true that the term, "separation of church & state," appears nowhere in any founding documents, but neither does the term, "right to privacy," among others.  If we were to use the criteria of the Christian right, ie. if it doesn't appear in the Declaration or the Constitution, it isn't valid, than neither does the appearance of a god or gods on our currency or our Plege of Allegiance.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate that we take public monies and provide for things like school vouchers or faith based initiatives.

One would think that these people would have the intellectual capacity to think about the consequences of their statements before making them, but it appears that it is not the case.      

I find your comments almost amusing.  It is a great thing that in this country, one has the right to believe in anything they want.  You can believe that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, a rabbitt distributes chocolate eggs in the Spring or a character named Lucifer.  On the down side, any opinion will be totally bereft of consideration and respect without some kind of evidence, as is yours. 

As to your question on who could find anything wrong with Christianity, I would point to the long, well documented history of Christian brutality and inhuman treatment to believers and non believers in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the Americas to find out just how much has gone wrong with Christianity.  Perhaps the Spanish Inquisition was not covered in your history classes.  Perhaps the treatment and enslavement of the Carribs or Arawaks in the Caribbean were somehow overlooked.  Perhaps the enslavement of the Incas, Aztecs Olmecs or any of the other peoples of the western part of Central and South America were just glossed over without any serious consideration. 

Ask the souls of Christians and especially non Christians who were rounded up, forced to convert, separated from their families, taken into slavery, tortured and murdered what they might think is wrong with Christianity.  Their history will give you the answer to your question.  Be forewarned.  Their answers will be covered by the screams from torture.  Their answers will be covered in the blood of innocents tortured beyond belief and then worked to death for nothing more than, "God, gold & King."

That's what is wrong with Christianity!

I must respectfully disagree with the statement that there is government hostility towards religion.  I would challenge any claim to hostility by asking why we are spending billions of dollars of the tax payers money, under a conservative Republican president and administration, united at the hip with the Christian right, on school vouchers which are appropriated towards mainly CHRISTIAN schools?

Why, under the above, we are spending billions for faith based initiatives going to mainly CHRISTIAN sources that are allowed to discriminate for CHRISTIAN reasons?

Why are there so many court cases involving the removal of CHRISTIAN symbols, such as the ten commandments, from public venues?

If anything, it should be apparent that the current administration, under the auspices of the CHRISTIAN extremists in this country, has done everything it can to show favoritism to the CHRISTIAN segment of the population.  Only now has this insidious plan come under proper review.  hopefully, the constitutionality of these plans will be reviewed and found to be wrong.

Hostility?  No!  Favoritism, preference and the promise of a CHRISTIAN dominated nation are in evidence.  If the facts are offensive, so be it! 

Gentlemen, gentlemen ----ladies too!  Notice how passionate we get about our religious views.  Of course we do. Let's take a "time out" and get back something basic. 

Here it is in a nutshell. The Framers of our Constitution understood the human heart.  They knew that religion engenders great passion. They knew that religion can be a great blessing.  Most of them were involved in the religious life of their own time, and for many of them religion was a positive influence in their lives.  So all those quotations showing the Framers to be sympathethic toward religion are on target. 

But there is more.  They knew something else about the human heart, and they needed to face it honestly. They knew that religious passion is not always a blessing, but sometimes leads to great danger. So they were wary, and rightly so.  They knew that we humans can take even beautiful things, and twist them into something evil ----even the gift of religion. They knew that religion can lead to persecution, violence, and all the rest.  They knew the human heart.

Because of their wise understanding of religion, they gave America the great gift of church-state separation. They said : let everyone have freedom of conscience.  That is, let everyone believe as they wish. But also: let no one point-of-view ever "lord it over" all others  ---- either by legal establishment of that point-of-view, or by the sheer power of majority rule. That's church-state separation in a nutshell, meant to guarantee religious liberty for everyone.

There you have it. And the late Edmund Morgan, Professor of History at Yale put it this way:

In the government of the United States, from the adoption of the Constitution to the present day, one of the outstanding characteristics of American freedom has been the strict separation of church and state.   The Constitution originally made no mention either of religion or of God, and the First Amendment, adopted in 1791, took up the subject only to provide that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."   This provision has been pretty rigorously adhered to.   Not only the federal government but the state governments too have generally followed the principle behind it, that church and state should be entirely separate".(see Roger Williams: The Church and the State, p. 62.)

I would respedftfully challenge the statement that  our country has "rigorously adhered," to the principle of separation.

We  have A Christian god on our currency.  We have a Christian god in our plege.

We have religious prayers and a religious chaplain on the public dollar in our congress.

We have a national day of prayer sponsored by our government.

We have the hard earned tax dollars of our citizens being funnelled into programs like faith based initiatives and school vouchers which are predominitely Christian based and are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

We have, here in Jacksonville, a political process that takes the money of the public and apply it towards towards a day of faith with overt religious, naturally Christian, overtones.

We have a sizeable movement in this country to discredit scientific inquiry and the scientific processes in order to replace them with Christian based, biblically inspired teaching.

We have people in this country who would have us place Christian symbols, the ten commandments, on public property.

The wost of all of these is the fact that these people are absolutely convinced that their view is the only correct view. 

In my opinion, the thought that our government is "rigorously adhareing," to any principle of separation is a myth.  The facts, as stated above, might prove uncomfortable to some, but so be it.

If anyone has any doubts, I would suggest that they use their computers to check out the web sights of people and organisations like James Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Kennedy, Parsley, Wildmon, Donohue and the like.  The only thing they advocate is a totally Christian view according to their interpretation of the gospel, as if that were the  defining  and ultimate guide to world domination.  I'll tell you now that it is an extremely frightening view.  Compromise, tolerance and equality are not in their philosophy.  It is their way, or the highway.  And their highway is not smooth riding and has no rest stops.

In my opinion, this can, in no way be considered a policy "rigorously adhered to," a policy of understanding, adherence to law, common sense or common decency. 

Your complaints are well taken : there is indeed lot's of religion mixed into our everyday lives.  Your illustrations are well-chosen, my friend.

So I have to agree : to describe our nation's experience as strict separation of church and state goes too far. But remember, the principle of church-state separation is not exact science or mathematics.  You can't measure it with a ruler, or ask the surveyors to draw the lines. We're talking about a political principle, such as the promise of a "a fair trial", or the "separation of powers", etc.  The boundary concerning church state separation is not exactly a bright line.Debates will be on-going!  In America there is a long tradition of  public religion mixed into our everyday lives.

Two groups of folks are quite upset about this. One group are those folks who are skeptical about religion and would like all these references removed. Many of these  folks think about how deadly dangerous religion can be and they don't want to be constantly reminded. All of us who have looked honestly at religious history must sympathize. There's much that religion has to answer for.

But there's another group who objects to our public religiosity, namely, many folks who are deeply religious. They are convinced that public displays of religiosity have a negative impact on religious life. Things that are profoundly sacred are simply watered down, they say.  Bible faith becomes billboard faith, and instead of personal devotion and commitment we have cultural division and conflict. They argue that "civil religion" drains the life out of authentic faith, and leads to a view of religion which accents the shallow and the ceremonial. (Some of the courts have gone in this direction, ruling that religious mottos, etc, are acceptable precisely because they are historical/secular and not religious!)

Here's my view. I think that public religion ("civil religion", etc) is here to stay. I agree with court rulings that much of this public religion is of minor significance.  It is ceremonial, religiously generic, and we've lived with it for many generations. The fact is that references to God will be a part of our public rhetoric for a long time to come. 

But certainly there are other matters concerning public religion that raise very serious  red flags. For instance, the use of public (taxpayer) money to directly support sectarian religion  clearly cannot be allowed. School vouchers and so-call faith based funding programs are hugely controversial in this regard.  Likewise, pressing public schools (or other public agencies) to teach explicitly religious points-of-view must be resisted. So --- here's my point --- while some of this "public religion" is of little significance, other matters are of major importance and call for our close attention. The bright line marking the separation between church and state is a matter of continued debate.

A friend of mine is reading a particularly informative work these days. I plan on buying a copy, so I can read the rest of it: Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist, by Mark Gabriel. 

Here is Amazon's review:
When you open the pages of this book, be prepared to meet the Islamic terrorist face-to-face. Author Mark Gabriel goes deep into the thought processes of the Islamic radical with the expertise that can only be gained from growing up as a Muslim in Egypt when the foundation of the modern radical movement was being laid. Dr. Gabriel was more than just an observer: he was a scholar of Islam at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was ultimately kidnapped and tortured by the Egyptian government for his refusal to fall in line with the fundamentalist teachings of the day. Dr. Gabriel exposes the foundational philosophy of radical Islam in a way that has never been accomplished before in English. He examines the most important manifestos written by radicals ranging from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden. As a result, he put together the Five Pillars of Radical Islam which clearly explain the goals and methods of modern Islamic radicals. More than merely describing the problem, Dr. Gabriel also presents ideas that can be implemented to control the terrorists of today and to prevent new ones from arising. Journey into the Mind of the Islamic Terrorist is a powerful weapon for the West in its struggle against Islamic terrorism.